3 ms·

> Nothing. Most leftists are anti-authoritarian and want strict limits on the power of the state. > 'The left' is highly fragmented in western countries These

> Nothing. Most leftists are anti-authoritarian and want strict limits on the power of the state. > 'The left' is highly fragmented in western countries These two things seem incongruent. I like how both yours and the other reply to me make it a point to say 'no true lefty' and only the 'bad' ones are authoritarian and would get ostracized but also lefties don't ostracize. The other reply claims that centrist lefties are really the authoritarian ones and you say the extreme lefties are the authoritarian ones. Who are we left with? Also, I was downvoted, I assume by lefties who "aren't lefties", for asking. I detect a pattern. To further reply to you both if "just-left-of-center liberal types" are bad, and extreme left tankies are bad, and they all call each other authoritarian and accuse one another of not being the real lefties -- this according to you -- how is one to best interact with a stranger who identifies as a leftie? Bonus question: further down thread I was told " If the cops submitted a thousand data requests and 999 of them came back with nothing, but one of them prevented someone from gunning down people, then they are were justifiable requests." -- since some lefties are authoritarian/violent tankie types shouldn't the police be investigating lefties none stop?

anigbrowl 4y ago
These two things seem incongruent. I'm not sure why. I know lots of people with different ideological tendencies (some of which I think are wrong or even silly) but with whom I have some core values in common. I think the best way to approach people of unfamiliar political viewpoints is to spend more time listening and less time badgering.
- recuter 4y ago
  If the left is highly fragmented it is hard to make generalizations like "most leftists are anti-authoritarian". You yourself mention the tankies and others with an authoritarian bend. You might say they are not true lefties and are not representative but they say the same about you. > I think the best way to approach people of unfamiliar political viewpoints is to spend more time listening and less time badgering. I am all ears, it is not my intention to badger. The question is posited to you in good faith -- to me those you deem "bad lefties" are still lefties and leave a bad taste in my mouth. The proclivity towards censorship and authoritarian behavior, "well intentioned" and often justified as necessary for whatever reason, is not new and has sadly started being fashionable on the left again as of late. This, as is tradition, is the undoing of your movement. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask if you can't agree about the subject amongst yourselves how an outsider should interact with you, it is not like I can automatically tell right away who is which flavor. What should I do about the "bad" ones?
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    I know a lot of left wing people and have been in and around the political community for a long time, so I have a reasonably good intuition of the scope and influence of different tendencies. I haven't bothered to gather hard data on it, which seems like it would be hard to come by in any case. What should I do about the "bad" ones? Not hang out with or spend time on them if you don't find their views tenable. I sometimes critique such groups privately or publicly to dissuade people from joining or giving them credibility; for example somewhat well-known groups like the Revolutionary Communist Party or the Party of Socialism and Liberation are little more than grifts that encourage people to volunteer their time/libery in whatever political cause is trending right now, and cycle donation money back toward a small coterie of ideological profiteers. Both of them have roots in 60s radicalism. The RCP are Maoists deep down, PSL have more Stalinist tendencies I think. But they're much more preoccupied with being dissatisfied about the state of things than plotting about how they'd oppress their enemies once they take over, because their whole organizing model is based on 20th century mass politics. But their actual membership and influence are very low, with a high degree of turnover. The RCP, for example, has a youtube channel but few of their videos get even 1000 views despite them nominally being a national organization. That's why such groups go where the crowds are in hopes of picking up new recruits; they have little or no capacity to drive anything, and are not sufficiently obnoxious to start fights with anyone else. Instead they show up with banners, posters and megaphones, hand out signs to anyone who will take one, and try to scoot themselves towards the front of any sort of march or photo opportunity to look relevant. They don't actually do much besides publicize themselves and solicit donations. Some of these go back into printing more agit-prop and some financially supports the staffers/leaders, though from what I can tell it's pretty small beer. You never see them organizing strikes or trying to set up community services like eg Food Not Bombs.
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    They can be highly fragmented and still have plenty of common ground (which is what they need to focus on, but the corporate State has been very adept at weaponizing identity politics to prevent this). Tankies are a tiny minority.

anigbrowl 4y ago

These two things seem incongruent. I'm not sure why. I know lots of people with different ideological tendencies (some of which I think are wrong or even silly) but with whom I have some core values in common. I think the best way to approach people of unfamiliar political viewpoints is to spend more time listening and less time badgering.

recuter 4y ago
If the left is highly fragmented it is hard to make generalizations like "most leftists are anti-authoritarian". You yourself mention the tankies and others with an authoritarian bend. You might say they are not true lefties and are not representative but they say the same about you. > I think the best way to approach people of unfamiliar political viewpoints is to spend more time listening and less time badgering. I am all ears, it is not my intention to badger. The question is posited to you in good faith -- to me those you deem "bad lefties" are still lefties and leave a bad taste in my mouth. The proclivity towards censorship and authoritarian behavior, "well intentioned" and often justified as necessary for whatever reason, is not new and has sadly started being fashionable on the left again as of late. This, as is tradition, is the undoing of your movement. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask if you can't agree about the subject amongst yourselves how an outsider should interact with you, it is not like I can automatically tell right away who is which flavor. What should I do about the "bad" ones?
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  I know a lot of left wing people and have been in and around the political community for a long time, so I have a reasonably good intuition of the scope and influence of different tendencies. I haven't bothered to gather hard data on it, which seems like it would be hard to come by in any case. What should I do about the "bad" ones? Not hang out with or spend time on them if you don't find their views tenable. I sometimes critique such groups privately or publicly to dissuade people from joining or giving them credibility; for example somewhat well-known groups like the Revolutionary Communist Party or the Party of Socialism and Liberation are little more than grifts that encourage people to volunteer their time/libery in whatever political cause is trending right now, and cycle donation money back toward a small coterie of ideological profiteers. Both of them have roots in 60s radicalism. The RCP are Maoists deep down, PSL have more Stalinist tendencies I think. But they're much more preoccupied with being dissatisfied about the state of things than plotting about how they'd oppress their enemies once they take over, because their whole organizing model is based on 20th century mass politics. But their actual membership and influence are very low, with a high degree of turnover. The RCP, for example, has a youtube channel but few of their videos get even 1000 views despite them nominally being a national organization. That's why such groups go where the crowds are in hopes of picking up new recruits; they have little or no capacity to drive anything, and are not sufficiently obnoxious to start fights with anyone else. Instead they show up with banners, posters and megaphones, hand out signs to anyone who will take one, and try to scoot themselves towards the front of any sort of march or photo opportunity to look relevant. They don't actually do much besides publicize themselves and solicit donations. Some of these go back into printing more agit-prop and some financially supports the staffers/leaders, though from what I can tell it's pretty small beer. You never see them organizing strikes or trying to set up community services like eg Food Not Bombs.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  They can be highly fragmented and still have plenty of common ground (which is what they need to focus on, but the corporate State has been very adept at weaponizing identity politics to prevent this). Tankies are a tiny minority.